Aphyle

It is tragic, and I do feel for the young man and his family, but if a group is following NAR safety guidelines, then how do you get:

"The nose cone of the rocket had malfunctioned, blasted a hole through Connor's arm and burrowed into his chest, breaking two ribs."

and

" "... I smelled burning flesh, and I looked and it was just gushing out blood..."

I would like more details - does anyone have any? Was the troop following the safety rules? Was the young man unsupervised with a loaded rocket? Please, more details!!!

I ask this having run a successful camporee earlier this fall with 284 attendees and nearly 200 launches. We followed NAR safety guidelines and the worst injuries were a twisted ankle and a cut, both unrelated to the rocket aspect of the camporee. We would like to host such an event again, and I would like to be able to head off any questions that arise.

I worry more about water rocket launches, where a 2-liter bottle lifts off with the impulse of an E30.

heada

The rocket in question is the (recalled) Estes X-15. It is a heavy(as far as model rockets go) RTF plastic rocket. The failure that spawned the recall is that the ejection gases escape around the motor mount and so the nosecone never comes off and the parachute never deploys. If flown on a C6-5 this rocket can reach over 600 feet high and if there is any wind or angle to the launch rod it could arch outside of the 15 foot safety area required by NAR safety code.

When the Estes X-15 fails in such a manner, it becomes a 1/2 pound dart falling from 600 feet and can impact with significant force (others can do the math) Having it hit the scout and do that level of damage is not out of the realm of possibility.

The burning flesh comment could be the smell of the motor itself and not actual burning flesh. I could see where there might be confusion by someone who has not flown many model rockets before.

If it can be shown that the flight did follow the NAR safety code, I would imagine that Estes will have to pick up the remaining medical bills as there was an official recall for this rocket.

-Aaron

(edited to correct massive spelling errors....)

Aphyle

Thanks - When I did manage to view the video (on a Mac, it is a little harder), I saw right away it was the recalled rocket. I wondered when the report said that "the nosecone had malfunctioned." And a heavy polystyrene dart such as that rocket could become would certainly cause that level of damage, particularly if he was some distance away and not at that 15' circle.

"The burning flesh comment could be the smell of the motor itself and not actual burning flesh. I could see where there might be confusion by someone who has not flown many model rockets before."

- or smelled burning flesh in comparison.

I certainly did not appreciate the little bit of B-roll the station showed that looked more like a rocket-load of firecrackers. I had to explain to more than a couple of people prior to our event that no, we could not and would not put a little bit of BP in the nose of the rockets we launched.

Verna

I'd like to know exactly what happened and get some clarification on the "burning flesh" comment.

ddmobley

I am still trying to understand how the boy sustained these injuries.

If the rocket came in ballistic, I have to imagine a near vertical trajectory, yet the video shows an impact area somewhere in the right pectoral area of the chest, almost under his right arm. The video says the nosecone penetrated his body and nearly punctured his heart. That seems to indicate a near horizontal trajectory, if it entered under his right arm and headed toward the heart.

Was the kid lying on his left side at the time of impact?

Aphyle

I could almost see a defensive leaning to the left, as a "heads-up call" might have initiated, and allowing for an entry through an arm and into the chest cavity, hitting him near the shoulder as it seems to have done. In the video, they show him holding up just the nose, which I am assuming was detached from the rocket body.

fox_racing_guy

I would think Mom would get more results going after Estes instead of the Boy Scouts. That rocket was recalled for that exact defect after all.

Art Upton

Actually, this is old news.

The reason for the Estes Recall is this incident that happened this summer

The new news is that the Mom now has a lawyer that volunteered to help her out.

It is sad that the boy got injured, I don't want to take anything away from that.

Edit: and salt to the injury, the family is down over $1000 in bills and with their income level, is near bankrupcy

ddmobley

Art, is this correct? The article says:

"Six weeks after a toy rocket nearly killed her son, a North Texas mother is struggling to help pay the bills needed for his recovery."

So, my read of this is that six weeks ago her son was injured.

rcktnut

This is a very misfortunate accident, and I hope all the bills are paid by who is determined to be the responsible party/parties. The news article about the incident is totally bogus. He was hit on the right side, the CT scan, MRI whatever it is, is showing the left side of someone. Also at the point of entry the nose cone would have to penetrate maybe 4 inches plus on a body that size to get that close to the heart. I'm not a doctor, but I wasn't born yesterday either. I did not see much of a wound to the chest. LoL on the deadly firecracker filled rocket!!! Nothing like a good straight factual news article about what our hobby is all about!!!

Jeff

Art Upton

Ok, late summer in September, sorry.

Note the injury in the Arm, which might be armpit as in the other story that also then broke a rib.

http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml07/07319.html

ddmobley

Jeff, I got several good chuckles as I read the article and watched the video. I thought about starting a Top Ten Inconsistencies list!

Here are the questions that the video raised for me:

1. The news anchor starts off the video saying "spirally out of control, a toy rocket nearly takes a boys life, ending up inches from his heart." If it was a ballistic recovery, it wasn't spiralling out of control, is was falling straight down.

2. "To help all people at all times" is a line out of the Boy Scout oath, but somehow that gets translated into "To pay the medical bills of an injury destined to reimbursed by the ultimate party at fault, Estes" by the reporter. I get the impression though the lawyer wants to go after the Boy Scouts, a much larger organization.

3. How the YouTube-provided fireworks video is supposed to illustrate model rockets malfunctioning is a real stretch.

4. The point of entry is the right arm/shoulder. How the rocket penetrated nearly 10 inches horizontally to threaten the heart is the mystery of the moment. Unless the boy was lying on his left side, we have another appearance of John F. Kennedy's magical bullet, which is the only other object I know that is able to enter in one direction and make a left turn.

5. Scene: operating room. Narrator: "They can also be deadly." Reader: "Mr. Narrator, please give us one case where someone has died from a plastic model rocket's impact. No? I thought so."

6. In the video of the MRIs, the backbone is on the bottom, the heart is on the right and impact is on the left, so it has to be viewed from the bottom. In the video, the impact damage in the MRI shows both the entry and the final resting place in the lung, puncturing it. This also indicates a horizontal range of impact, not vertical.

7. For a six-week-old injury, it's the most amazing job of suturing, healing and recovery I have seen. Minimal scarring on the arm, and almost no scarring/redness on the chest. Based on the September 28th date of the recall, apparently the news station got this wrong.

8. Michael Stewart is a lawyer with the firm Godwin Pappas Ronquillo, LLP, Dallas, TX, a trial law firm that lists that 90% of their practice is devoted to litigation. One of their areas of practice is product liability. The video champions Stewart as an attorney who heard about the case and "offered his expertise for free." Product liability case are taken on contingency, with nothing up front but typically nets the attorney at least 30% of the winnings. He's hardly working for free. And in the Boy Scouts, he may smell a big payday.

Verna

It's unfortunate the boy was hurt and as the mother of 5, I certainly wish him a speedy recover but BSA has insurance to assist with the medical. Estes may be involved somewhere down the line but before they go dashing off to court there needs to be a complete investigation and a report of what happened. Seems to me there are at least 3 parties that would share in responsibility for the incident, namely BSA, the boy and his parents, and then maybe at some point, Estes.

There's not enough information reported here at the moment to make a true determination as to what really happened other than the boy was hurt by a recalled rocket. This whole thing raises so many questions and answers so few, it is astounding. (*see Darrell's list) I have not been able to view the video but from the conflicting data reported here, including burning flesh and "free lawyer" it is beginning to smell like college fund to me.

Verna

Steve_Shannon

None of us would ever want a child to be exposed to danger, whether in rocketry or in other sports that have historically been orders of magnitude more dangerous, such as baseball, football, hockey, soccer, or basketball. I believe that it could be nearly as damaging to the child to be a pawn in a legal case.

rstaff3

I'm with you, Steve. I'm sure that this will teach the kid a great life lesson

When I saw Darryl's list, it made me wish I could remember a good lawyer joke. Don't know if my next smiley should be a grin or a frown.

ddmobley

I'd probably have to make a new smiley for that.

rstaff3

Hehehe, now that satisfied my need for a lawyer joke

ncrocketeer

I don't see how Estes was at fault in this at all. They recalled that X15. They are not negligent. Where is this kids insurance? If she would've done what she was supposed to and put insurance on the kid she wouldn't be "struggling". Letting a kid out of your sight without insurance is just asking for something like this to happen.

I really hate seeing these cases all the time where people are sueing other people and other companies to pick up the tab for something that is their responsibility. Of course a lawyer wants to "help" her...he's gonna be laughing all the way to the bank.

heada

This case is the reason why Estes recalled the X-15. There was a design defect in the Estes X-15 that allowed it to fail in such a way that would be dangerous to people. I can see how a design defect could be the basis of a lawsuit, but I am not a lawyer.

As for having insurance, not everyone can afford insurance. I have a very good friend that is a single mother. Her son has insurance from his father but if that wasn't available she would not be able to afford insurance for her son. As it is, she doesn't have insurance for herself.

Sometimes a lawsuit is required. I am not sure if this is one of those times but I wont say that she shouldn't have sued as I wasn't involved and don't know all the facts.

-Aaron

rstaff3

After previously making light of the situation, I thought I'd say that I am sorry the kid was injured and hope he is recovering well. I also don't know the situation and he may very well deserve to recover some damages. Unfortunately, due to personal experience, I am quick to assume the facts are being manipulated to increase the claim.

ncrocketeer

I too feel bad if this kid was hurt by that rocket. It's sad, but if this is indeed the one that caused the recall, that proves right there they knew nothing of the problem. They did the right thing, and went above and beyond to recall the product.

At the same time, I *still* belive that people should accept responsibility for their own actions. If i go out there and get hurt doing something whether it's with rocketry, or using a tool, or in car accident or what it's my own choice. Accidents happen.

The part about the insurance is sad too. This is what happens when people bring kids into the world with no way to support them. I don't care what the situation is, that is the parents responsibility. If they cannot afford it, they should not have had a kid. If they lost their job, they need to find one. My god man, if I had a kid with no insurance I'd work 3 jobs, or take anything i could get, but that kid would be taken care of, and I would do without before I let a kid be put at risk like that. I'd also be telling that insurace company, "No BS, I want that policy to cover only the best of care. No games." Now that the kid has been hurt, and has been injured requiring surgery, it will be even more expensive. I'd never bring a kid into this world and put them at risk like that.

This is a prime example of people that do not take care of their kids. It makes me mad too, because kids don't have a choice. They have to live with whatever choices their parents make for them until they are old enough to take care of themselves.

Thgis is one of those emotinally charged subjects, so I'm gonna be real careful, but protecting a kid is high on my list.

I have a feeling we're only getting 1/2 the story here too. The Scout leader should've been protecting those kids also. Where was he? What was he doing? DId he not even try to cover this kid, or warn him, or take any action at all to prevent it? Basically he was the "parent" there.

Rocket do not just come in and hurt people by themselves. They don't randomly fly around. In fact, they take a very predictable path. The only was to change that path is to induce control into it, such as an R/C boosted glider. I also am suspicious of the the way the injury was characterized. It did NOT almost kill him, nor was it even close.

It really looks like this kid is gonna be railroaded into the court system at a very early age, and that is even more sad. Nothing that happens in a courtroom is positive at all. It's gonna have a negative impact on that kids life, and he will get to see the very worst in human behavior there...revenge tactics, lies, deceit, and all the counter tactics the other side will use. It is a hateful vitimizing place to be for everyone in the courtroom. Nothing gets settled there, and it's not worth it. People that thinki they will "win" anything in court are sadly mistaken. They will loose more than they will ever gain. Maybe not monetarily maybe, but they'll find out it's not the game they thought it would be. It is an emotionally draining experience, of years of frustration, worry, and fear. We've been there just to get a dang road state maintained so kids could rid the chool bus without having to walk a mile and a 1/2 in the rain and snow and stand there 1/2 hour in it or have the parents waiting in the car late for work so that they wouldn't have to. It sucked, and I hope I never sit in another courtoom again.

heada

This is indeed a charged and emotional issue. I disagree with almost all your statements but rather than make it more charged and emotional by refuting them I'll just agree to disagree. We all have a right to our own opinions and I try to be the type of person to not try and force my opinions onto others.

-Aaron

JRF

I was on this campout and witnessed the incident. The Estes X-15 did not fail in the manner that was described in the recall notice. When the rocket was launched, it turned almost a sharp 90-degrees very soon after leaving the launching pad (from what I remember, about 3-4 meters into the air). We were at the top of a hill and it was a windy day, and the rocket turned so that it was flying into the wind, following the curvature of the hill very closely but losing altitude very slowly. The boy in question was a long way down the hill, far out of sight of anyone in the rocket-launching area and without a buddy or anyone else with him. He was facing toward the rocket when it struck him, which is why he sustained injury where he did.

This was not the first time this particular rocket had been launched. It was launched before that same day with no incident. It had no payload or anything else that should have interfered with its flight.

rcktnut

JRF,

Thanks for shedding some light on this incident. I'm 100% positive that everybody "here" is deeply concerned about the incident, and wishes that the boy and his mother are very well taken care of. A horizontal under power flight would explain the severity of the injury. What I do take offense to is certain parts of the newscast. This is a very serious issue, parts of the newscast were laughable to us rocketeers, (faulty rocket-bunch of firecrackers exploding in a parking lot). Safety is the big no.1 issue before pushing that launch button. Everybody on and in site close or far needs to be aware of an impending launch. The rocket should be inspected after every launch, (broken,cracked fins-recovery system). Also some designs including the X-15 are prone to severe weathercocking in windy conditions. Also just by you mentioning the boy being downhill, far out of site, but well within range of the rocket, tells me that this is an inappropriate launch site/ field to begin with. Rocketry has an excellent safety record, thanks for sharing the info., as mentioned before, it is forums like this we all learn from. Please follow along, any more details would be greatly appreciated.

Jeff

oddboy10

I ran a rocket event at a camporee this past october and we launched over 75 rockets and had no problems. I did 4 f &g demos for the boys.

I cant understand how the nose cone could just come off and go into his chest

ddmobley

According to the recall, the nose cones didn't come off, turning the rocket into a dangerous projectile. What I can't understand is how a model rocket such as this can achieve such a velocity to maintain a horizonal flight profile and strike someone down range (and down hill) without falling out of the sky onto the ground. These are "whooshpoppers", the motor burns out fairly quickly. Gravity should have pulled it to the ground fairly quickly.

Steve_Shannon

I can see how. Gravity would have accelerated it toward the ground at 9.8 m/s/s. If the rocket started going truly horizontally at 4 meters height , it would take a second to fall to level ground. At the end of the first second the rocket would be going pretty fast. But the hill sloped down away from it, so it could have been flying horizontally for a couple of seconds before descending to the level of the boy's chest. After two seconds the rocket might have been flying slightly under the speed of a .45 ACP bullet. The rocket has more mass but a sharper tip than a .45. I can definitely believe this scenario.

Rcktnut, do you know what motors were used? How much slope did the hill have? How far away was the injured boy? (best guess in either meters or feet)

ddmobley

I think you meant JRF. I guess not knowing the slope of the hill and how far away is why I am having trouble visualizing this. Having lived in Dallas, it's pretty flat.

JRF

The campout took place at an out-of-council camp that was located in the Arbuckle Mountains in Oklahoma. I am not a rocketing enthusiast and was merely observing the activity from a distance, not running it, so I don't know what engines were being used. I think it was whatever the lowest-power engines are (A's or something?) and only one was used.

I am, however, a physicist and I am pretty sure that the rocket was not exhibiting pure projectile motion. In other words, it was not accelerating toward the ground at 9.8 m/s^2. Remember that this model X-15 was shaped like an airplane and I believe (but do not know for sure) that its wings had actual airfoils, or were shaped like actual airplane wings. I do remember that it was flying "upside down" when it turned into horizontal flight. I'm not sure what this all means for the cause if its trajectory.

Here's my reasoning for why the nosecone was stuck in the boy's chest: The rocket engine was still under power when the rocket turned and started following the hill. I didn't see it after it crested the hill so I did not see the impact, but I believe that the rocket was still under power when it struck the boy. This would explain why the object was still hot enough to burn his flesh. Then the charge inside the engine responsible for deploying the parachute out of the nosecone blew, causing the nosecone to separate from the rocket.

The incident occurred on October 27. Sadly I cannot really tell you how far the boy was from the launch site. My best guess is about 30 yards perhaps. The reason I can't say for sure is because I injured myself running to get the first-aid kit by stepping on a small twig that somehow punctured the sole of my shoe and went into my foot. It was a hell of a day.

If you have any other questions, please post them. I didn't read all of the posts before mine because I don't have enough time or patience to go through everybody's speculation.

Steve_Shannon

Darrell, I sure did mean JRF. Thanks.

Thanks JRF,
I appreciate your first hand knowledge of the incident.
I don't know if the X-15 model would exhibit lift. They are probably designed not to have lift, but rather to fly vertically, but it's very possible that while still under thrust the resultant direction could be close to horizontal. A lower powered lighter motor would make the model more susceptible to weathercocking, but would not have as high of velocity.

rstaff3

A few notes...the reader can decide if they might apply.

An Estes C will only burn for a couple of seconds. It's likely the rocket wasn't under power. The ejection could still have gone off after the event.

I've seen a less bullet-like oddroc embed itself in a leg muscle. Ambulance and surgery ensued. The rocket really look like it was going slow too. It obviously had plenty of momentum.

Most 'aeroplane-like' rockets seem to try to fly when their speed slows. My SHX-15 is a prime example and fortunately it only does this at the end of the boost.

I've had several winged Estes rockets that flew nicely most of the time but were subject to going bonkers. The SS1 and the Shuttle stack were prime examples. So, just because the X15 flew well several times is not a guarantee. I wonder how close the CP-CG is on this model. I've suspected sensitivity to small wind gusts and possibly poor performing motors may cause the occasional poor flights.

rcktnut

THANKS AGAIN JRF,

One question, was the nosecone visible or did it penetrate the chest as deeply as the news video is claiming it did?

Jeff

ddmobley

So this was not the accident that precipitated the recall, the recall being announced on September 28th. The six week time frame was accurate.

All in all, this was a tragic accident, and someone ultimately is going to pay, and for more than just the medical bills.

ncrocketeer

All wings and fins will have lift. A flat plate is in airfoil, and proiduces lift, as does our fins with flat plates. Most people think of an airfoil as the rounded semi-semitrical/symetrical shape similar to our Ogive NC profile, but a flat plate is a very good airfoil.

I fly R/C electrics that have wings made only from Depron Foam that are completely flat. Some of the wildest 3D aerobatics I do, I do with those small electric planes.

Saying that, the CG os that X15 rocket, probably was not good for horizontal flight. To maintain lift it would've had to have a CG on the wings approximately 33% of chord of the wing. That is not an exact figure. It's a figure we often use as a rule of thumb on wings. It actually would've had to been slightly tail havy also to maintain a positive angle of attack in the horizontal to produce lift. The thing also did not have sufficient wing to keep flying for long. It would have the glide ratio of a brick traveling through the air. The wing loading would be extremely high also. It pretty much would stall and quit producing lift at a higher speed than a wing designed to fly horizontally.

Our fins work very much like a wing, but there are mnay differences. We don't worry about glide ratios. We want stability and max vertical performance, so there are mnay differences, but the flat plates are an airfoil, and do produce lift.

I don't wanna get into lift vectors and relative wind, reynolds numbers, MAC, and all of that because it really isn't necessary for such a small surface compared to the surface of the vehicle.

I hope that kid is OK. I really do. I hope he does not have fear of these things, and really hope that he jumps back on the horse and enjoys these rockets. It's sad he had a bad experience so early in his rocket hobby. Hopefully he can do this, and enjoy it. These kids have dreams, and rocketry can lead these kids to alot of very big opportunities when they get older. That's what I like to see.

JRF

Again, I didn't make it as far as the injured boy before I injured myself, but I believe that the nosecone was completely embedded in his chest from what I remember hearing from others.

Post any other questions if you have them. I know that the information surrounding this incident is important to you all.

Steve_Shannon